Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#1

Post by Gorque » 11 Mar 2019, 03:01

An interesting article by Professor Erez Manela regarding Wilson's fourteen points and Egypt's aspirations for independence.
In November 1918, when news of the armistice in Europe arrived in Cairo, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, a prominent Egyptian intellectual, was approached by a friend. “This is it!” Haykal’s friend exclaimed. “We have the right to self-determination, and therefore the English will leave Egypt.” The United States, the friend explained when asked about this outburst, “is the one who won the war. She is not an imperialist country.” Therefore,” he reasoned, “she will enforce the right to self-determination and enforce the withdrawal.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/opin ... ilson.html

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#2

Post by Sid Guttridge » 11 Mar 2019, 09:18

I don't see how it was "Wilson's betrayal".

Please explain?

Sid.


User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#3

Post by Gorque » 11 Mar 2019, 14:59

Hi Sid:

This is not my article or my opinion. I provided a snippet and a link to the article merely for the forum members to peruse or discuss, should they so choose.

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 02:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#4

Post by The Ibis » 12 Mar 2019, 15:58

Manela's book is good, but I would read it together with Josh Sanborn's "Imperial Apocalypse," which traces the slogan of self-determination associated with Wilson further back.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#5

Post by Sid Guttridge » 12 Mar 2019, 16:08

Having read the linked article again, I can find no mention of Wilson making any promises to, or even having contact with, Egypt.

So I remain bemused how he can be reasonably be accused of treachery.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#6

Post by wm » 16 Mar 2019, 12:48

Wilson talked a lot about self-determination, promised the liberty, the self-government, and the undictated development of all peoples so "peoples" were severely disappointed when he didn't deliver on any of his promises.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#7

Post by Sid Guttridge » 17 Mar 2019, 17:21

Hi wm,

That is as may be, but disappointment is not the same as betrayal.

As far as I can tell, Wilson made no specific promises to Egyptians and so was in no position to betray them.

Cheers,

Sid

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#8

Post by wm » 18 Mar 2019, 23:02

He made no specific promises and leaders of national independence movements were frequently politically naive.

They couldn't possibly know it wasn't the savior speaking, but a creature from the Washington swamp (on American conservative forums he is called a monster to this day.)

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#9

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Mar 2019, 13:37

Hi wm,

Of course they should have known "that it wasn't the saviour speaking". They were simply grasping at any straws available to get rid of the British.

Washington may be a "swamp", but it was the "swamp" that undercut the British and French when they tried to re-establish control of the Suez Canal in 1956.

So, I would suggest, the "Washington swamp" was more an ally of Egyptian nationalists against the British presence than a hindrance in the long run.

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 19 Mar 2019, 19:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Loïc
Member
Posts: 1227
Joined: 14 Jun 2003, 04:38
Location: Riom Auvergne & Bourbonnais France
Contact:

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#10

Post by Loïc » 19 Mar 2019, 16:19

the same presidency who had previously launched the ~20 years long military occupation of Haïti since 1915, of the Dominican Republic since 1916, re-occupying Cuba for the third time and 15 years more in 1917, still in Nicaragua and former part of Colombia, Panama, both Latino-American planned or aborted Suez Canal of the Americas

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#11

Post by South » 19 Mar 2019, 17:27

Good morning Loic,

All correct - but it started earlier than President Wilson and his administration.

The US "officially" entered the world stage after the Spanish-American War (Cuba to Philippines and elsewhere).

The discovery of gold in California accelerated efforts for a canal through Nicaragua. It was on the drawing board earlier than Woodrow Wilson's father servicing in the Confederate army.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
Loïc
Member
Posts: 1227
Joined: 14 Jun 2003, 04:38
Location: Riom Auvergne & Bourbonnais France
Contact:

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#12

Post by Loïc » 19 Mar 2019, 18:29

Indeed, even before the spanish-american war of 1898 or 3rd war of Cuban Independance 1895-1898
there were various events, the well-known Mexican-American War, the adventures of Narciso López in Cuba against Spain, William Walker in Nicaragua
it was more easy for the US Army to send their troops to California by a foreign state, Colombia - isthmus of Panama not yet a canal - than crossing the US Territory, it was like that Ulysses Grant himself reached his garrison before the ACW

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#13

Post by wm » 20 Mar 2019, 10:10

Sid Guttridge wrote:
19 Mar 2019, 13:37
Washington may be a "swamp", but it was the "swamp" that undercut the British and French when they tried to re-establish control of the Suez Canal in 1956.
I'm not quite sure it was for the benefit of Egypt, it seems it was mostly because of the bad publicity it generated.
Egypt wasn't a white lamb attacked by a wolf pack, was armed to the teeth, openly supported terrorist attacks against Israel and France, spewed hate against other Muslim leaders (e.g. Iraq), took other countries' property.

Maybe Wilson was motivated by American idealism but his idea was muddled and destructive, used to a great effect by Hitler against Czechoslovakia and Stalin against Poland.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#14

Post by South » 20 Mar 2019, 13:51

Good morning Wm,

You're right.

The US molding of the Suez Crisis wasn't primarily for the benefit of Egypt. The Eisenhower administration was "concerned" about Soviet involvement.

Some of the basic background:

26 July 56: Nasser nationalizes Suez Canal
29 Oct 56 : Israeli forces attack in Sinai
5 Nov 56: Br and French forces land at Port Said. From what I remember...a bit different than Sid's mention above...The UK, Fr and Israel were working in tandem regarding this entire campaign.
6 Nov 56: Cease fire agreement

In December, the USSR agreed to five Egypt military assistance and assist in financing the Aswan High Dam project.

Ike did not want a Soviet presence.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries

#15

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Mar 2019, 15:42

Hi wm,

Nobody is contending "it was for the benefit of Egypt". The US has its own self interest. Nevertheless, the US undercutting of the British and French at Suez benefitted Egyptian nationalists. It also benefitted aspiring independence movements elsewhere as it meant the two major colonial powers could no longer intervene militarily with impunity.

At the time the US was more worried about the developing Hungary crisis and regarded the Anglo-French Suez jaunt to Egypt as an unhelpful diversion.

Cheers,

Sid.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”